A pendente lite sale is not void under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added as a party to a suit so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of different character.

Mr. Arun Bhansali, J.

This revision petition is directed against order dated 18.10.2016 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 47 CPC has been rejected.

2. An agreement to sale was executed by Dhanna Ram in favour of Chhabil Das on 01.03.1978; Chhabil Das executed another agreement to sale in favour of Mani Ram on 20.06.1978; a Sanad of the land in question was issued in favour of five grand-sons of Dhanna Ram on 21.05.1991.

3. A civil suit was filed by Chhabil Das and Mani Ram impleading the widow, son and daughter of Dhanna Ram as defendants seeking specific performance of agreement dated 01.03.1978; a written statement was filed by son of Dhanna Ram, inter alia, indicating issuance of Sanad in favour of his five sons; petitioners Banwari Lal and Paras Raj purchased some part of the land from grandsons of Dhanna Ram by registered sale deed on 04.03.1992 and petitioners Raj Kumar and Hansraj purchased some part of the land on 07.03.1992 by registered sale deed; the suit filed by Chhabil Das and Mani Ram seeking specific performance of agreement dated 01.03.1978 was partly decreed by judgment and decree dated 05.01.1996; it is claimed that a revenue suit was filed by sons and daughters of Mani Ram, from which, the petitioners came to know about the agreement to sale, suit and the decree dated 05.01.1996.

4. The petitioners and respondent No.23 Bhagwana Ram filed suit seeking cancellation of judgment and decree dated 05.01.1996, which suit came to be rejected by the trial court; Execution Application No. 05/2001 was filed for execution of decree dated 05.01.1996 impleading the petitioners as party.

5. The petitioners raised objections under Section 47 CPC, questioning the executability of the decree dated 05.01.1996. It was, inter alia, submitted in the objections that balance consideration of Rs. 20,000/- as required by the decree was not deposited within the stipulated time and the same was deposited on 26.02.1998, which time was not extended and, as such, the decree cannot be executed in terms of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act of 1963'). The objectors were not impleaded as defendants to the suit, no decree has been passed against them; the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('T.P. Act') are not applicable; as under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act of 1963') defence as bona fide purchaser is available to the petitioners, the execution petition be dismissed.

6. A response was filed by the decree-holders, inter alia, indicating that application filed by the petitioners under Section 28 of the Act of 1963 had already been rejected, as the transfer has taken place during pendency of the suit, they were bound by the decree and that objector No. 10/respondent No. 23 has transferred the land in question to the decree holders, therefore, the objections be rejected.

7. The trial court, by its impugned order came to the conclusion that the petitioners, being pendente lite purchasers, were not necessary parties and have no right to obstruct in the execution of the decree; there was no evidence that the decree in question was collusive; the provisions of Section 52 of the T.P. Act were applicable; objection pertaining to Section 28 of the Act of 1963 were not pressed. It was also held that the execution application was not barred by limitation and, consequently, the objections were rejected.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court committed error in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners. It was submitted that merely because land in question was transferred to the petitioners during pendency of the suit, by itself cannot render the decree execuitable against the petitioners, inasmuch as, if the petitioners were impleaded as party to the suit, a right to defend transfer, made in their favour in terms of Section 19(b) of th